Political parties are coalitions of interests of various groups of people. Some of those interests coincide with Christianity and other do not. A politician who says, either explicitly (they normally aren't that stupid) or implicitly that "A vote for me (or my party) is a vote for Jesus" is blaspheming.
People need to read C. S. Lewis's Meditation on the Third Commandment. Over, and over and over, and over, and over.
Christianity will make you uncomfortable with the ideology of ANY party. If you are completely comfortable with the ideology of any party as a Christian, you are not thinking clearly.
81 comments:
I totally agree. As for me, I am pretty much in agreement with most things one of our major parties stands for, with a few exceptions. But with the other party, I agree with absolutely nothing. (There are a few issues, such as our bloated "defense" budget, about which I agree with neither party.) So at least for me the choice is clear. Go with the party with which I am most in agreement.
Not voting is not an option.
I agree with Democrats on a handful of things, but even those they manage to screw up with their proposed solutions. I agree in principle with Republicans more, but they again manage to screw everything up with their strategies.
Not voting is absolutely an option when there are no good options to vote for.
We disagree there, Kevin. I believe that as a citizen, I have an obligation to vote. In fact, I am in favor of the Australian system, where voting is mandatory. You don't have to vote for a major party, you can even write someone (even yourself) in, but you do have to cast a ballot.
There are never good options to vote for, and there never have been:
Synaptic Sparks: Examining Voting
Voting for an intrinsic evil is a sin of commission. Failing to vote against intrinsic evil is a sin of ommission.
I take some grimm satisfaction in digging Democrats and promoting Republicans. It's not part of my theology, it's just fun.
My President (in my prayers at least once a week), my two senators, the House of Representatives, my state senator, and my state assemblyman are all people I didn't vote for. I think it's a healthy American attribute that we make fun of those we didn't vote for.
Good grief, it's not like the Democrats firing on Fort Sumter or assassinating Abraham Lincoln. It's not like Democrat Theophilus Eugene "Bull" Connor giving the shaft to our fellow American citizens with a different skin color. It's just having a little fun at their expense.
After all, we are not burning down cities like the Democrats do.
Wait, are you suggesting that destroying your neighbors' property is not an effective way to protest on behalf of your neighbors?
BMiller: Voting for an intrinsic evil is a sin of commission. Failing to vote against intrinsic evil is a sin of ommission
All politicians are evil. So is voting. Voting is asking someone to force your will upon your neighbor, which is immoral. I don't know why Christians honor this system.
All politicians are evil.
I don't believe all politicians are evil, but I do believe the leadership is, and by extension the system propped up by the parties.
If that means that our system of government itself is evil because leaders are human and do evil things, then I would say that is trivially true. The same could be said for any system then.
But unless you're a moral relativist, one can't trade prudential judgements like how best to care for the poor for supporting things that are wrong in every circumstance.
We all used to understand that. Now many churches in America are OK with intrinsic evil. Maybe they think it will keep people in the congregation and donating. But why would you want to stay in a church like that when you you're already a member of a perverse political party?
Speaking of perverse. Why are leftists complaining about laws that prevent adults from grooming small children without parents knowing about it and calling it "Don't say gay".
Even Disney
I really like voting! I like reading (or listening to) some of the thoughts and ideas of the candidates, arguing with my fellow citizens, going down to my polling place on election day, usually seeing at least a couple of people I know, signing in, getting my paper ballot, marking it, inserting the ballot in the machine, getting my "I voted" sticker, listening to the results come in, seeing my guy go down in flames again. Lord help me, I do love the whole process.
Did I mention how much I love voting!
In the small town I live in we have two parades a year through main street. Both parades are based on the Swedish immigrants who settled here. We have our Swedish festival parade (in May) and our Santa Lucia (Christmas) parade. The parade starts lining up about a hundred yards from my house. In the parade are the usual political candidates. I like walking down the floats and cars as they are lining up. I always stop at the political candidates, reach out my hand and say, "I'm Dave Duffy." They always give me a warm handshake in return and state their name. I have s one to two minute conversation with them about politics, then I keep walking down the lineup. The candidates are just people. Okay maybe once, a Democratic candidate shook my hand with tentacles, but that was an anomaly.
I have not missed a single election since my first vote cast in 1972, the year I was first eligible to vote. Since then I have voted for the Republican candidate in 3 presidential elections and the Democratic candidate in 9. I also am the only person I know of who can boast of having voted for both George McGovern and Barry Goldwater. (McGovern for president, Goldwater for senator) How's that for being bipartisan?
Okay maybe once, a Democratic candidate shook my hand with tentacles, but that was an anomaly.
That one must have had a glitch in the cloaking mechanism.
Star,
I think your life would be more interesting if you go full partisan, especially if it's the opposite of the majority of where you live.
"especially if it's the opposite of the majority of where you live"
That would turn me into a partisan Democrat, since the precinct in which I live went for Trump in both 2016 and 2020.
I think your life would be more interesting if you go full partisan
I used to be a full partisan, and it certainly was much more fun. Everything was black and white, the good guys and bad guys clearly identified. Internet arguments were much more entertaining. I didn't have to fact check every news article I read.
Ah, those were the days.
I know a few full partisans. They're no fun at all. In fact, boring, for the most part. You know what they're going to say before they open their mouths.
Speaking of being a fun partisan, at the aforementioned Swedish Festival parade in 2017, Concordia Lutheran Church had a float of Martin Luther nailing his thesis to the Wittenberg door, marking the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. It was a cool float. The Holy family Catholic Church float was a bunch of kids singing songs and throwing hard candy out to the bystanders.
A friend, the pastor of Concordia, told me he received a call a couple of days later from Fr. Greg at Holy Family. Father Greg said, "Pastor Douglas, if you have a problem with my church come over and we'll talk about it."
Both guys were full partisans. Nobody died and no buildings were burned to the ground.
I doubt most Lutherans or Catholics could even accurately tell you what the doctrinal differences were/are between them.
In the early 80s, I was stranded in a small German town near the Czech border by an ice storm that closed all the roads. Best part: I got to spend the night in a castle! But the next day was Sunday, so I made my way to the village church and soon what I thought was the Mass began. My German was good enough that I could follow along, and for the first 15 minutes or so everything proceeded with no surprises. But then things went off in an unexpected direction, and I had trouble figuring out what was going on. An elderly lady next to me in the pew noticed I was confused and leaned over to say "Evangelische" (which is German for "Lutheran"). She recognized that I was Catholic! So for a good 15 minutes (which is a long time) the Catholic and Lutheran Sunday services were indistinguishable.
Star,
Danke für die Geschichte Stern. Ich bin dankbar für die Zeiten, in denen ich in einer mittelalterlichen Kirche in Deutschland Gottesdienst feiern durfte.
Amen! In that Lutheran church, amidst treacherous ice on the roads and walkways, I was able to worship Gott with my fellow Christians, and they were welcoming to me.
Over the years, I have prayed with Baptists, Anglicans (in the UK), Episcopalians (in the USA), Unitarians, Lutherans, Methodists, Evangelicals, Orthodox, and Jews. I have three times (prior to COVID) served as one of the wise men in the Christmas play at the Methodist church at the end of my street. Although I am Catholic to my bones, I much appreciate what other denominations have to offer. I believe we Catholics could profit greatly by learning from them.
Thanks for your stories Star. I enjoy them.
bmiller,
Speaking of perverse. Why are leftists complaining about laws that prevent adults from grooming small children without parents knowing about it and calling it "Don't say gay".
Actually, the wording of that law enables pedophilia, by preventing any sort of discussion of things like 'good touch vs. bad touch'. Supporting is is support an intrinsic evil.
However, I predict bmiller will continue his support of the party enacting these pro-pedophilia laws, because there is not force stronger than hypocrisy.
Actually, one force stronger than hypocrisy is tribalism, and bmiller has a severe case of it. If "his side" is for something, then so is he. And if there's anything he doesn't like, all he has to do is call it "leftist". No further thought is necessary; the label suffices. He doesn't even have to define his terms. It's all "My side good - anything else evil!" Must be nice.
I've asked bmiller before to define "leftist", but he either cannot or just plain will not.
Miller has the most insightful comments on dangerousidea.
Guess I'm not allowed to respond now.
>Speaking of perverse. Why are leftists complaining about laws that prevent adults from grooming small children without parents knowing about it and calling it "Don't say gay".
Speaking of perverse, why are rightwingers like alien robots, all controlled by some central mothership, programming them what to say in response...?
def HB1557Retort ():
if reactionToHB1557 = "Don't say gay":
print("yOU'rE a gRooMeR!!!")
Rightwing Zombie #1: "yOU'rE a gRooMeR!!!"
Rightwing Zombie #2: "yOU'rE a gRooMeR!!!"
Rightwing Zombie #3: "yOU'rE a gRooMeR!!!"
Rightwing Zombie #4: "yOU'rE a gRooMeR!!!"
I have to admit, your ability to get in line and say what Rightwing Central Command wants you to say is impressive and powerful, and will likely lead to much success, at least in the short term. We leftwingers, by contrast, are so broad and individual that it's almost impossible to get us to agree on anything, or take commands from anyone, which will be our downfall, no doubt.
Martin,
Other than "I don't like what rightwingers say!", your comment was information free and observably opposite from the truth.
"Leftwingers" are much better at organizing protests, propaganda and talking points than "rightwingers". Afterall, it was the organized "Don't say gay" hysterics of the left that raised the question "What does preventing teachers from hiding their inappropriate sexual conversations with small children from their parents have to do with 'don't say gay'?". It's an obvious question to anyone paying attention.
You are correct that labelling the bill "Don't say gay" is a rare case of leftwingers actually organizing and doing proper marketing. Reminds me of "death panels." I wish we would do it more often!
"What does preventing teachers from hiding their inappropriate sexual conversations with small children from their parents have to do with 'don't say gay'?"
The issue is twofold:
1) there is already a law in Florida that prevents inappropriate talk of human sexuality in these younger grades; so HB1557 is a solution in search of a problem
2) the Don't Say Gay bill is so vaguely worded, and allows ANY parent to sue a school if she INTERPRETS something as "discussion of sexual orientation", the fear is that schools will play it safe and ban any kid with gay parents from even speaking of his family
The lawsuit recently filed against it lays out the EFFECTS the bill may have (again, the EFFECTS, not strictly written in the bill itself):
To appreciate how this dynamic will unfold in practice, just consider how students, teachers, parents, guests, and school personnel might navigate these common questions: Can a student of two gay parents talk about their family during a class debate about civics? Can that student paint a family portrait in art class? Can a lesbian student refer to their own coming out experience while responding to a work of literature? Can a transgender student talk about their gender identity while studying civil rights in history class? What if that occurs in homeroom, or during an extracurricular activity with a faculty supervisor, or in an op-ed in the facultysupervised school newspaper? Are teachers allowed to respond if students discuss these aspects of their identities or family life in class? If so, what can they say? Do those same limits apply if a teacher intervenes where a student is being bullied or beaten (or mistreated at home) based on their sexual orientation or gender identity? What if students address aspects of LGBTQ identity in essays for which teachers must provide grades and feedback? Speaking of which, can a history teacher educate their students about the history of LGBTQ rights? Can a government teacher discuss Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)? Can an English teacher make note of queer themes or plots—and can they assign books in which one of the characters (or their families, or a side character) is LGBTQ? Does the librarian have to remove every book with LGBTQ characters or references? More simply, can a gay or transgender teacher put a family photo on their desk? Can they refer to themselves and their spouse (and their own children) by the proper pronouns? What do they do if a student’s same-sex parents visit the class together on career day, or ask to join a field trip? Are those parents forbidden from speaking to the class, on the theory that their very presence somehow instructs students on “sexual orientation”?
Again, none of this is explicitly banned by the bill itself, but since the bill doesn't define what "discussion of sexual orientation" means, and since it allows parents to sue a school if she believes they discussed sexual orientation in class, what school isn't going to be so scared of Karen that they'll play it extremely safe and just ban all the above anyway?
Martin,
What does preventing teachers from hiding their inappropriate sexual conversations with small children from their parents have to do with 'don't say gay'?
bmiller,
What does preventing teachers from hiding their inappropriate sexual conversations with small children from their parents have to do with 'don't say gay'?
The preamble to the bill, which describes why it was passed, says it's goal is to prevent discussion. That's it's intention, as declared in the bill itself. However, it's equally true that this bill says "don't say straight" every bit as much as "don't say gay". Following the law means no discussion of marriage of any sort.
I will say I appreciate you having dropped the "pedophilia" angle.
Martin,
It's interesting how people are focusing on the effect toward non-traditional relationships, but overlook that the law prohibits discussing traditional relationships as well.
It's interesting how people are focusing on the effect toward non-traditional relationships
Yes, why is the left only focusing on that? :)
Is pedophilia is another "non-traditional" relationship that the left wants to protect?
One Brow,
Indeed. There was an alleged teacher's note doing the rounds:
To be in accordance with this policy, I will no longer be referring to your student with gendered pronouns. All students will be referred to as ‘they’ or ‘them.’ I will no longer use a gendered title such as ‘Mr.’ or ‘Mrs.’ or make and references to my husband/wife in the classroom. From now on I will be using the non-gendered title ‘Mx.'”
Furthermore, I will be removing all books or instruction which refer to a person being a ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ as these are gender identities that also may allude to sexual orientation. Needless to say, all books which refer to a character as ‘he’ or ‘she’ will also be removed from the classroom. If you have any concerns about this policy, please feel free to contact your local congressperson.
I think someone ought to sue a school if the teacher mentions their spouse, and give a good malicious compliance test of this dumb law!
bmiller,
Duh. All of us on the left are defenders of pedophiles, but IN ADDITION, we also regularly sacrifice children in Satanic blood rituals and teach children Common Core, and our plan to implement Sharia Law across the country is slowly moving forward as expected, along with Critical Race Theory. As well as increasing the number of Democrat voters by allowing The Caravan (c) to come into this country unimpeded. Next on our to-do list: Elvis' Gyrating Hips and short skirts on women.
You can try and sic Anita Bryant on us again, but this time we'll be ready for you! *shakes fist*
Kevin,
Yes, why is the left only focusing on that? :)
While I agree we should make the point more often, I don't see anyone on the right pointing out that this law also forbids discussion of straight relationships. As a centrist, how do you feel about this law?
bmiller,
Is pedophilia is another "non-traditional" relationship that the left wants to protect?
No.
Martin,
You are opposing a law that prohibits school employees from having secret discussions about sex with K-3 kids. That is plain creepy. Mocking me doesn't distract from the creepiness.
But aside from that, you still haven't answered my question:
"What does preventing teachers from hiding their inappropriate sexual conversations with small children from their parents have to do with 'don't say gay'?"
Are you going to?
As a centrist, how do you feel about this law?
I think about it similarly to the blowup over critical race theory being taught in schools. Set aside whether or not CRT or the Gender Unicorn (as a visual representation of the gender topic) are actually being taught on anything resembling a widespread scale. The more relevant fact is that there is effectively half the country that is or leans politically conservative who reject those premises out of hand who don't want them taught to their kids as fact.
Conservatives (in general of course) recognize the reality of racism, gender dysphoria, etc, but they do not view racism in terms of inherent, systemic intent to benefit white people or hold down minorities. They view it primarily on the individual level, which is why there is so much pushback against things like "white privilege", why they believe virtually all progressives to be racist due to the bigotry of low expectation, and so on. Conservatives sincerely believe the left is deeply and inherently racist because of what racism means to a conservative. And because they reject those premises as both false and harmful, they don't want them taught to their kids.
They also don't separate man from male and woman from female. It's a meme on the right to show the kid from Kindergarten Cop who tells Arnold Schwarzenegger "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina". Basically everything can be explained with four words - male, female, masculine, feminine. Give a conservative someone who is "non-binary" and he will say they're still a man or a woman because they are physically a male or a female, regardless of what that person feels.
And again, because they reject the premises of the Gender Unicorn, they don't want the Gender Unicorn being taught to their kids. They don't want their six year old daughter, which to them is "female offspring", coming home and informing them that their teacher taught her she is a male because she is a tomboy. Those parents would be furious.
No one wants contrary beliefs they profoundly disagree with being taught to their kids as fact. Atheists aren't upset about prayer in schools because of legality - it's the subject matter. And atheists happily sue - using law - to stop it. I see no fundamental difference between that and the Florida law. It seems to be using a legal sledgehammer to drive a screw, but since neither side is interested in understanding the other's point of view, I expect to see more like it.
No one wants contrary beliefs they profoundly disagree with being taught to their kids as fact.
It seems that as long as the government is in charge of education then some groups of people are going to be in that situation. If you have no choice but to send your kids to a school that teaches things contrary to your beliefs, then you have no choice but to try to control the government. Looks like Bastiat knew what he was talking about.
bmiller,
I answered your question above. To summarize:
1. There is already a law in place that prevents this
2. The new, redundant, law will possibly cause schools to ban Little Jimmy, who has gay parents, from discussing his family at all, in fear of lawsuits from Karen who interpret it as "discussion of sexual orientation" when their kid comes home and mentions they talked about Little Jimmy's two moms in class
Martin,
#1 is irrelevant to my question. I didn't ask you if the law was needed, effective or redundant.
#2 seems like an intentional dodge or an indication that you don't understand the question at all. I don't see how I could have been any more clear. I asked you:
"What does preventing teachers from hiding their inappropriate sexual conversations with small children from their parents have to do with 'don't say gay'?"
Talking about what "Little Jimmy" says in class is a non-sequitur. If he starts talking about anal sex, the teacher should stop him and get child services involved.
bmiller,
>What does preventing teachers from hiding their inappropriate sexual conversations with small children
Nobody is opposed to preventing teachers from doing this. Teachers are already prevented from doing this by the existing law.
>have to do with 'don't say gay'?"
The bill is vaguely worded enough that any Karen can sue if she interprets a discussion that was had in class about same sex couples as "discussion of sexual orientation." Schools will respond to this threat by banning children of gay parents from mentioning their families at all.
Again with the dodge.
If you agree that school employees should be prevented from hiding sexual conversations with K-3, then what is there about this fact that pertains to gay sex?
Kevin,
I appreciate what you said, and read it twice to make sure I understood. I wasn't sure if you were trying to explain how you felt, how you would have felt a few years ago, or how you think other people feel. I can appreciate wanting to keep topics like this at a distance from oneself.
No one wants contrary beliefs they profoundly disagree with being taught to their kids as fact.
Certainly. However, how do we fit this in with facts that are contrary to their beliefs. I sense you don't want to discuss the factual nature of some of the topics to which you referred, so let's try looking at one mostly from the past. The teaching of evolution was fought against for decades, because people felt that it contradicted their profoundly held beliefs. Does that mean evolution should not be taught in a community where such parents are the majority?
bmiller,
>If you agree that school employees should be prevented from hiding sexual conversations with K-3, then what is there about this fact that pertains to gay sex?
Nothing.
Martin,
Thanks for answering the question.
Now I have another.
If you claim the law is redundant, then why claim that it is a "don't say gay" bill that must be opposed since it supposedly does not do anything different that previous standing law?
bmiller,
Because of its vague wording, and its allowance for parental enforcement via lawsuits. As I explained above.
Martin,
I don't understand how that answers my question.
You claimed it was redundant to standing law. I'm trying to understand why people are complaining about this bill if it doesn't do anything different that what is already established. That just doesn't make sense to me. Help me out here.
It does do something different than what is already established: it is vaguely worded than the existing law, and unlike the existing law allows parents to sue the school if they INTERPRET something that was said in class as "discussion of sexual orientation." I explained this above.
bmiller,
If you claim the law is redundant, ...
He claimed the law was redundant *for that purpose*. That doesn't mean the law has other, non-redundant purposes.
Martin,
It does do something different than what is already established:
Ok, then it wasn't redundant in your view. Thanks for the reply.
I have another question.
Should a teacher lead a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of various sexual positions in grade school classes without parental permission?
bmiller,
Should a teacher lead a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of various sexual positions in grade school classes without parental permission?
That was illegal before. Do we need need a law preventing conservative commentators on Dangerous Idea from shooting strangers in the head?
It is redundant: it tries to prevent something that is already prevented by an existing law, but does so in a vague manner that will allow, or scare, schools into preventing children of gay parents from talking about their families in school.
Nobody wants sexual positions to be spoken of in school. This is a non-sequitur.
Martin,
If a new law does something different from an existing law it is not redundant by definition. It looks to me that you are complaining about how the new law is different (ie. non-redundant) from existing law, or the existing law would be a "don't say gay" law just like the one people are complaining about. It's either redundant and is not "don't say gay" or it's not redundant and supposedly is.
I raised the topic of teachers leading discussions of sexual topics without parental permission to illustrate a point. If a teacher leads a discussion about sexual orientation it is a sexual topic by definition and so is inappropriate as you seem to agree. I assume you would equally object to discussions of heterosexual, homosexual, bestiality, incest or minor attracted person orientations. They all involve a discussion of where sex organs go don't they? I think only creepy teachers want to go there.
Employees do not enjoy free speech rights while at work and teachers are expected to keep classroom discussions appropriate also. It looks to me that the law actually protects school districts from lawsuits by specifying the limits of discussions allowed within a classroom situation. The State Board of Education will provide the construction and training for teachers so they will not jeopardize the school district as long as they follow their training. Parents cannot successfully sue school districts for following the rules provided by the State Board.
I sense you don't want to discuss the factual nature of some of the topics to which you referred, so let's try looking at one mostly from the past.
I thought about evolution as I was writing my previous post. There are a few distinctions I believe, but there is one hurdle for both CRT and the gender topic that won't be easily overcome any time soon, and that is the fact that both are social science topics, and over ninety percent of social scientists are progressives. If the official concensus position of reproductive biology was that life began at conception, and the vast majority of reproductive biologists were conservative Christians, do you think progressives would suddenly begin protesting Planned Parenthood for killing unborn humans? Or would reproductive biology be the Fox News of science in the left's eyes?
So even if CRT or gender studies become, or have already become, as dominant in their field as evolution is in biology, it will be rejected by conservatives due to the hyperpartisanship of both the general population and the field itself.
My own thoughts are that I have no indication that the teachers' behavior in question was even remotely prevalent enough to warrant such a broadly worded law. That said, the classroom is not the place for activism when roughly half the country will most likely disagree with whatever the teacher is advocating for. In this case, there are many people like me for whom the concepts of gender expression and identity are simply not consistent ideas, so I question their purpose in an elementary school. The more I've read on the concepts, the more confused I've gotten.
the teachers' behavior in question
What teacher are you referring to?
Kevin,
Thank you for your response.
You noted there are distinctions between a physical science like biology and a social science like sociology, and I agree. There are even larger distinctions between the discussion of the effects of various government programs and a discussion of an arbitrarily chosen line.
Outside of that, I largely agree with your post. In particular, teachers should not be advocating. I think they should be explaining, and one concern with the the is that it will put a damper on these explanations. However, advocacy should be off the table.
Kevin,
Where THESE the teachers you were referring to?
bmiller,
>If a teacher leads a discussion about sexual orientation it is a sexual topic by definition
That's the thing. What about a discussion about how Little Jimmy has two moms, because sometimes two women get married instead of a man and a woman? And that's as far as it goes. Would that be ok to discuss in class?
Martin,
I can't tell if you've agreed with my analysis or not with your "That's the thing". Did you, or not?
Regarding your question about 2 moms:
First, it is false that any mammal can have 2 moms regardless of whether they "marry" each other or not.
Second, why would a K-3 teacher want to stigmatize children of single parent households, foster children, or those being raised by grandparents by discussing who has married caregivers and those who don't? That is basic leftist logic used consistently.
Activists may think it is imperative to force their morality on everyone else, but there are also activists who oppose those activists. For my part, I think engaging in homosexual activity is a mortal sin leading to hell for those who are unrepentant. Do you want a teacher to also add the fact that all major religions have this view of the 2 "moms" marriage situation? It can be easily be done in a factual discussion about sexual orientation.
I think teachers should teach kindergarteners to read, write and learn math in a public school and be shielded from cultural warfare. The best option would be for the government to support home schooling rather than institutionalizing poor kids and indoctrinating them against their parents wishes.
bmiller,
So what happens if a class is asked to do an art presentation, and Little Jimmy does his on his family, which happens to consist of two mothers who are married, and he talks about them at the head of the class. The teacher says nothing aside from appropriate comments about how he did with his presentation, etc.
Then Little Conner goes home and tells his mom that "they" talked about how Little Jimmy has two moms. "WhatwhatWHAAAT?!" shrieks his mom Karen, who then proceeds to file a lawsuit against the school for "classroom discussion of sexual orientation."
Maybe she loses. But the school still has to foot the court costs. And is now terrified of this happening again.
So next year, when Little Billy stands up to do his art presentation on his family, as soon as the teacher sees that he has two dads she immediately asks him to stop talking and to take his seat. Next up is Little Jenny, who does her presentation on her family, and it's on her mom and dad, which proceeds normally.
What then? And how is not wanting Little Jimmy to feel like an outcast in school mean that I'm literally a pedophile who wants to sacrifice little kids on the altar of Satan?
Martin,
Did the teacher lead a discussion about the sexual orientation or gender identity of either the homosexual or heterosexual couple or allow that type of discussion proceed? Did the teacher violate the training guidelines established by the State Dept. of Education? If not, there is would be no basis for a lawsuit, just like any other frivolous suit regardless of hysterical leftist detachment from reality.
If the teacher did get involved in a classroom discussion and expressed her opinion that Jimmy had 2 mothers or Billy had 2 dads then she would be in violation of teaching accurate science and should be fired for that alone.
As for what makes it look like opponents of the bill look like pedophiles, it is because they seem to insist kindergarteners should be taught about gays, as I pointed out above. What defines gay people is what they want to do with their sexual organs. So yes, that's plenty creepy.
I wonder if certain people have been celebrating 4/20 a little too much. I seem to keep having to repeat myself.
Don't say bad words
bmiller,
So. to you, any acknowledgement of the existence of a homosexual couple in class, such as just acknowledging that "yes, Jimmy has two moms who are married, instead of a mom and a dad" and nothing more than that, is impermissible? And creepy...?
Martin,
Your responses are creepy. They appear to be deliberately evasive and non-responsive, just like someone who wants to hide their true intentions.
It's apparent that you not only haven't read the law you are criticizing but also that you can't understand, don't want to understand, or fully understand and choose to ignore what I wrote.
You've named the law "Don't say Gay" when it explicitly prohibits teachers from leading classroom discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity for kindergarteners "in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." or hiding those discussions from parents. Why emphasize homosexuality in this context. It's reasonable to wonder if opponents of the law think that children must be recruited into a homosexual lifestyle as early as possible or there won't be enough potential partners for themselves.
Me: "Hey, this law is so vaguely worded that it will make children of gay parents feel excluded and alien. I don't want any kid to feel excluded like that."
You: "wHy dO YoU lEftIsT cReePaZOidS wANt tO hARvEst chILdRen foR youR hOmOSexuAl rItuALS"
Me: "WTF"
A perfect microcosm of the utter stupidity and childishness of modern American politics.
Martin,
Some friendly advice. You really need to sober up before posting. You're soiling yourself.
bmiller,
It's "basic leftist logic" that there is no shame in being raised by a single parent, being a foster child, or by grandparents. Your assumption that kids would feel such is yet another example of your imposition of your values onto others, in this case children.
Post a Comment